The conflict between accountability and confidentiality in Medicare's access to psychiatrists' notes

Paul Jewell

doi:10.3109/10398562.2011.610460

The conflict between accountability and confidentiality in Medicare's access to psychiatrists' notes

Paul Jewell

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aims of this paper were to identify a conflict between psychiatrists' obligations regarding patient confidentiality and Medicare's auditing procedures, and to examine potential resolutions to the conflict. Conclusion: While it is reasonable for Medicare, as a taxpayer-funded instrumentality, to require documentary evidence to substantiate and justify claims, such a requirement constitutes a significant breach of patient confidentiality. Obtaining patient consent appears to be the only ethical resolution of the issue.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	489-492
Number of pages	4
Journal	Australasian Psychiatry
Volume	19
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3109/10398562.2011.610460
Publication status	Published - 2011

Access to Document

10.3109/10398562.2011.610460

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The conflict between accountability and confidentiality in Medicare's access to psychiatrists' notes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Jewell, P. (2011). The conflict between accountability and confidentiality in Medicare's access to psychiatrists' notes. Australasian Psychiatry, 19(6), 489-492. https://doi.org/10.3109/10398562.2011.610460

@article{0cea5b9061c34c9ba8a4eaa20f47cc87,

title = "The conflict between accountability and confidentiality in Medicare's access to psychiatrists' notes",

abstract = "Objective: The aims of this paper were to identify a conflict between psychiatrists' obligations regarding patient confidentiality and Medicare's auditing procedures, and to examine potential resolutions to the conflict. Conclusion: While it is reasonable for Medicare, as a taxpayer-funded instrumentality, to require documentary evidence to substantiate and justify claims, such a requirement constitutes a significant breach of patient confidentiality. Obtaining patient consent appears to be the only ethical resolution of the issue.",

author = "Paul Jewell",

year = "2011",

doi = "10.3109/10398562.2011.610460",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "489--492",

journal = "Australasian Psychiatry",

issn = "1039-8562",

publisher = "Blackwell Publishing",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The conflict between accountability and confidentiality in Medicare's access to psychiatrists' notes

AU - Jewell, Paul

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Objective: The aims of this paper were to identify a conflict between psychiatrists' obligations regarding patient confidentiality and Medicare's auditing procedures, and to examine potential resolutions to the conflict. Conclusion: While it is reasonable for Medicare, as a taxpayer-funded instrumentality, to require documentary evidence to substantiate and justify claims, such a requirement constitutes a significant breach of patient confidentiality. Obtaining patient consent appears to be the only ethical resolution of the issue.

AB - Objective: The aims of this paper were to identify a conflict between psychiatrists' obligations regarding patient confidentiality and Medicare's auditing procedures, and to examine potential resolutions to the conflict. Conclusion: While it is reasonable for Medicare, as a taxpayer-funded instrumentality, to require documentary evidence to substantiate and justify claims, such a requirement constitutes a significant breach of patient confidentiality. Obtaining patient consent appears to be the only ethical resolution of the issue.

U2 - 10.3109/10398562.2011.610460

DO - 10.3109/10398562.2011.610460

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 489

EP - 492

JO - Australasian Psychiatry

JF - Australasian Psychiatry

SN - 1039-8562

IS - 6

ER -